Historians tend to disagree on the level of protest/resistance to enclosures, but I would argue that it is based on (a) their focus for the study (b) their definition of resistance. Barbara and John Hammond argue in The Village Labourer (published 1911 but still used by historians) that there was minimal resistance because of fear of repercussions. W.E. Tate agrees that there was little protest, however, he points to the very structured form of enclosure that considered local sentiments and provided a level of compensation as being the reason for an absence of hostility.

In more recent work, J.M Neeson's book Commoners: Common Right, Enclosure and Social Change in England, 1700-1820, turns the focus to the people affected by enclosure rather than previous studies that usually examine the difference processes, the efficiency of the commons, the necessity of enclosure for agricultural developments, or in the case of the Hammonds, through a framework of class struggles. Neeson's cultural approach highlights numerous ways that 'commoners' resisted enclosure including but not limited to: open protests, marches, public meetings, 'illegal outbursts' (eg. removing fence posts at night), and destroying the common land being enclosed. Basically Neeson argues for three key factors that contributed to the level of protest: regionalism (eg. relationship with Lord), type of common land (eg. marshland vs. woods), and the number of people who had access to common land (different rules for different regions meant this number varied).

So, the question is what is 'significant'? I personally think any level of resistance should be considered significant, but no, there were not mass protests or petitions with thousands of signatures. However, it should be kept in mind that the process of enclosure in England took over a century so organized protest would have been largely unrealistic because it affected different regions at different times.

If you are interested in more on this topic I would highly recommend reading Commoners because it provides a holistic view of the commoner's life and how it was affected by enclosure. However, as you will see in the introduction, one wonders if Neeson has rose-tinted glasses on when examining the past because there is a sense of nostalgia for the village community based on a moral economy that may or may not be a totally realistic rendition of how villages actually functioned.